Remove solitude.

[Dillon]

the question of RP still stands

all that is true, i do agree that solitude is OP, and based stricly on technical facts, should be removed as many other things have and many other things should still be removed.

the question we must ask ourselves is, in a RP shard, where PVP should still be RP based, is there a place for great, godlike power protecting a holy area?

while I agree solitude is OP, i also agree that it should stay because of the RP.
but there's another poll for this anyway..

Ok so give solitude to Nature and Tekstone. Or are you saying these 2 have no power to have Solitude? The RP is important but that is not an issue in this situation. If you want defend your o town get your warriors there and fight without Solitude like Natures and Tekstone did for years. That's a great exemple you can have.

[Biao]

Solitide removed and replaced, kill nerfed or changed to athans suggestion, wrong removed, siege changed to attackers=attackers, malleus replaced or give to imperial also, and we have a good start to balance

We would had a good start indeed.

[Johnny Walac]

Solitide removed and replaced, kill nerfed or changed to athans suggestion, wrong removed, siege changed to attackers=attackers, malleus replaced or give to imperial also, and we have a good start to balance

We would had a good start indeed.

Malleus gotta be removed, not added. Then it's a good start.

[Glarundis]

the question of RP still stands

all that is true, i do agree that solitude is OP, and based stricly on technical facts, should be removed as many other things have and many other things should still be removed.

the question we must ask ourselves is, in a RP shard, where PVP should still be RP based, is there a place for great, godlike power protecting a holy area?

while I agree solitude is OP, i also agree that it should stay because of the RP.
but there's another poll for this anyway..

Ok so give solitude to Nature and Tekstone. Or are you saying these 2 have no power to have Solitude? The RP is important but that is not an issue in this situation. If you want defend your o town get your warriors there and fight without Solitude like Natures and Tekstone did for years. That's a great exemple you can have.

yes, nature and tekstone could have their own solitude, be it an exact copy or a version of a rite so great to protect their temple.

in all honesty, what do you prefer?normal pvp for no special gain except loot, or risky pvp where you can get something better than loot?a real way of making your enemies weaker.

i would much rather have solitude and temple corruption with great consequences rather than flat pvp where loot is the main reward
loot shouldn't be the main reward, it should be a small bonus. the main objective would be something else. winning the war/battle/corrupting temple/disabling a traderoute/etc

[Dillon]

the question of RP still stands

all that is true, i do agree that solitude is OP, and based stricly on technical facts, should be removed as many other things have and many other things should still be removed.

the question we must ask ourselves is, in a RP shard, where PVP should still be RP based, is there a place for great, godlike power protecting a holy area?

while I agree solitude is OP, i also agree that it should stay because of the RP.
but there's another poll for this anyway..

Ok so give solitude to Nature and Tekstone. Or are you saying these 2 have no power to have Solitude? The RP is important but that is not an issue in this situation. If you want defend your o town get your warriors there and fight without Solitude like Natures and Tekstone did for years. That's a great exemple you can have.

yes, nature and tekstone could have their own solitude, be it an exact copy or a version of a rite so great to protect their temple.

in all honesty, what do you prefer?normal pvp for no special gain except loot, or risky pvp where you can get something better than loot?a real way of making your enemies weaker.

i would much rather have solitude and temple corruption with great consequences rather than flat pvp where loot is the main reward
loot shouldn't be the main reward, it should be a small bonus. the main objective would be something else. winning the war/battle/corrupting temple/disabling a traderoute/etc

Reward?? The great reward is to kill your enemy when you are outnumber, when your pvp skills are so great you create hate just for saying "hello" on forums, and something like solitude, that have no skill at all can ruin the motivation to log just to pick a fight and have the joy to have a good pvp battle! You dont understand it.

[Glarundis]

i'm not going against that argument, because i'm not against it.
all i'm saying is, even if we pick battles on neutral grounds, and we can do it for fun, there still should be places where one side has advantage because from the rp point of view it is where they have the most spiritual power.

i understand completely the idea of wanting some fun and having some fair pvp on a neutral ground, but if you are not getting that kind of pvp, blame it on us imperials if we're not going out there, don't blame it on the system

[Atlantis]

there still should be places where one side has advantage because from the rp point of view it is where they have the most spiritual power.

Its called guarded town (it has guards in the town=advantage) + you have emmysaries, and its a place where you can't summon guards.

[Athan01]

in all honesty, what do you prefer?normal pvp for no special gain except loot, or risky pvp where you can get something better than loot?a real way of making your enemies weaker.

i would much rather have solitude and temple corruption with great consequences rather than flat pvp where loot is the main reward
loot shouldn't be the main reward, it should be a small bonus. the main objective would be something else. winning the war/battle/corrupting temple/disabling a traderoute/etc

If 'risky' pvp involves the guy in radlius solituding the guy in dskulls & indys for 300 damage - get rid of it to fook.
Pvp is always risky but ultimately peoples gear is the only thing that changes hand and will effect the way people fight. Fooor example just look at zarek at destard or imps at wrong recently - im guessing people were slightly more buttsore than when their altars get invaded?

Now, if you want to go on about roleplay reasons for having solitude and 'great consequences' why not go all the way with it. Lets bring back malediction, imprisonment and make wrong that little bit harder for anyone who dies to a guard?
I'd be all for that hard-line attitude towards roleplay (assuming it was balanced and evenly harsh for all) - but i've a funny feeling most people wouldn't jump on the bandwagon. That would certainly change the main objective you speak of (religious roleplay I assume?) which is currently loot.

Sortof getting lost within my own words here; all or nothing is what i'm getting at.
Either fair balanced pvp and get rid of solitude (& kill imo) or really strict evil consequences for fighting the enemy religion at their sacred temple up and & including all of the above.

Reward?? The great reward is to kill your enemy when you are outnumber, when your pvp skills are so great you create hate just for saying "hello" on forums, and something like solitude, that have no skill at all can ruin the motivation to log just to pick a fight and have the joy to have a good pvp battle! You dont understand it.

Couldn't agree more - We can win this campaign against solitude yet!

there still should be places where one side has advantage because from the rp point of view it is where they have the most spiritual power.

I thought at temples you got the same effects as a blessed stone, you regen & your enemy gets damaged. Oh and those big things .. what're they called - emissaries? Mya that fits your description of having the advantage pretty well

[Basil Brotheamus]

Here's many very personally charged/subjective opinions about the solitude - but the objective question is do we want to increase the attacks to Britain and Moonglow? Because that would be the biggest global impact of removing it. I probably would be up for removing.

[Glarundis]

Fooor example just look at zarek at destard or imps at wrong recently - im guessing people were slightly more buttsore than when their altars get invaded?

i know it's pretty obvious that it happens like that, ppl get pissed because of their items, i myself would get pissed. but from the rp point of view, we should rather care about our altars getting corrupted than our items.

Now, if you want to go on about roleplay reasons for having solitude and 'great consequences' why not go all the way with it. Lets bring back malediction, imprisonment and make wrong that little bit harder for anyone who dies to a guard?
I'd be all for that hard-line attitude towards roleplay (assuming it was balanced and evenly harsh for all) - but i've a funny feeling most people wouldn't jump on the bandwagon. That would certainly change the main objective you speak of (religious roleplay I assume?) which is currently loot.

that's exactly my point of view. i know those things are harsh, but atleast the main point wouldn't be about looting or getting looted. it's much more than that, it's having your religion winning or losing as a whole. right now, with the siege system we're on the right track because we have something that impacts the game more than just looting or getting looted. but we need more than that, and imo we need to fix the siege system.

i don't want to let solitude stay just for the sake of it staying and having easier pvp. i want solitude to stay to make sure invading an altar is really hard, but if you pull if off, the religion that got the altar corrupted will also have a hard time living with it. just to make clear, the wrong part, imo, can disappear. i'd much rather have prisons in one of the enemy's towns where we can jail break or something

as for those saying we have guards, that means nothing. we also have guards at any other city, it doesn't make invading that specific city any harder. as for emissaries, oh well, let's all agree that emissaries are an advantage. the point is, are they that enough of an advantage to make altar invading risky?i don't think so. i think everyone would much rather fight against emissaries than against solitude.

HOWEVER, if we all agree emissaries are good enough of an advantage, sure, let's get rid of solitude. you guys are missing my point, i hope i made it clear on my post.
even if solitude disappears i still want there to be consequences on religious rp/pvp rather than just looting/getting looted. it didn't really make any religion really stronger or really weaker, atleast not until the siege system came about

tl;dr
sorry, you gotta read it